In this paper I will discuss and evaluate the definitions of piety in Plato’s Euthyphro. Plato wrote this dialogue shortly after Socrates death. The Euthyphro is one of Plato’s early philosophy dialogs in which it talks about Socrates and Euthyphro’s conversations dealing with the definitions of piety and gods opinion. This dialogue begins when Socrates runs into Euthyphro outside the authorities and the courts. Socrates is there because he has been charged with impiety, and Euthyphro is there to accuse his father for the death of a man named Meletus who was a farm hard.
How Plato’s “Euthyphro” illustrates the toxic relationship between pride and ignorance. I would first like to start this essay off with a parable that was told to me during a fundamentals of communication class a few years ago during my sophomore year here at university. I believe the main philosophical message found in this parable really highlights that of what Socrates was anticipating Euthyphro would eventually realize in their dialogue about the true definition of piety. The story goes as followed one day a very knowledgeable college professor who specialized in buddhism had a guest speaker over to visit and to lecture to the class.
Piety is a difficult word to understand and define. In Plato’s Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, he brings up a dialogue that rings true even today. The question of what piety is, and how can one fully understand so they can thereby live piously. Socrates rejected Euthyphro’s definition of piety as “what is dear to the gods” because this definition was vague, and did not truly explain what piety was and because as the gods are beyond understanding and are ununified, there is no exact set of what they hold dear. Socrates has many problems with Euthyphro’s definitions, because he is looking for Euthyphro to give him an accurate definition, while Euthyphro fails to give a proper definition.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God
The Eumenides confronts two contradictory perspectives: the Furies of the ancient order against Apollo of the young generation of Gods. Aeschylus introduces spiritual conflict within the human and universal realms. There is a lack of understanding of justice within the individual, producing an interrelational struggle amongst citizens, and resulting to the incomplete human identity in correspondence to their community. The justice system conquers upon an arbitrary verdict, providing little insight of the positions of good or evil. Aeschylus, through Athena, offers a compromise between two opposing radical ideas, balancing the neutrality of logic and sentiment within the individual, to strengthen unity of a society, and to stimulate the transcendance of humanity.
Section 1: question 3 Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a modernized version of the question that Socrates askes in Euthyphro: “Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” This dilemma or argument proves or contradicts that the Divine command theory is wrong. The following argument order was also discussed in class, but this sequence by Jonathan Pearce seemed like a better explanation. (1) 1.
In Euthyphro, Scorates had a method to find the true meaning of a word or subject. Socrates was a wise man because he use to always ask question until he reach an answer that fit everything they he belief in. This method was turn into Socratic Method that is use to question people. This is known as Socratic Method and is use to find the definition or true nature of what is justice. Socratic Method makes a person think in more detail when trying to find a meaning to a subject.
Goodness is a central question of life. Humankind tends to be good and the whole humankind seeks to the question of what goodness is. People throughout the history have changed notions of goodness, so strongly; and as a result, it has caused difficulties in defining goodness. Also it is obvious that people often correlate goodness and badness to their current requirements and needs. People tend to categorize everything; and since the beginning of human existence people use such words as morality, generosity, ethics, kindness to describe the goodness; and immorality, coarseness, infirmity to describe badness.
In Euthyphro, Plato’s method of arguing obliviously proves the point that evidence and a clear thought out explanation is needed when trying to describe and explain the difference between two things—especially when involving right and wrong. Although it helps to prove it and make you truly think about the definitions as well as how to describe it, for the person, in this case Euthyphro, on the other side of the argument it can be very annoying; because you explain one thing and then are questioned and have to explain more or then you being to questioned on your own thinking making you have to restart. It is in a way similar to now how little kids go through a phase were they ask “why” to anything and everything; typically the one being questioned
Goodness plays a huge role in society and, therefore, attracts a lot of attention of various philosophers and other thinkers. Plato is not an exception; his dialogue “Euthyphro” is concentrated all around this theme. It raises the question whether goodness exists at all; but at the same time, it leaves a reader with no answer. However, through Socrates it could be understood that, whatever can be defined precisely is real, that is why he tries to get an exact definition of goodness from Euthyphro in order to know if goodness is real or it is something impermanent, which is merely claimed by human society. Euthyphro made three attempts to give the definition and prove his religious knowledge.